The Court's analysis of the quantum of evidence presented in
Shrink Missouri governs the inquiry here. In concluding that the evidentiary showing in that case was sufficient to justify the contribution limits challenged there, the Court cited an affidavit from a state legislator stating generally that large contributions have the potential to buy votes, and “newspaper accounts of large contributions supporting inferences of impropriety.”
Shrink Missouri, 120 S.Ct. at 907. Although the majority largely ignores the record before us, it likewise contains affidavits and depositions from those who have been active in federal fund raising activities, both as candidates and as party activists. These materials state that large donors to political parties give with an eye toward obtaining favorable consideration of legislation they deem important or obtaining access to a legislator in order to urge favorable action.
See, e.g., Decl. of Robert Hickmott (DNC fundraiser), jt. app. at 452–53; Aff. of Robert Razen (staff person for Senator George Mitchell),
id. at 462; Aff. of Former Senator Paul Simon,
id. at 466; Decl. of Former Senator Timothy Wirth,
id. at 545–46; Dep. of Paul Simon,
id. at 636; Dep. of Timothy Wirth,
id. at 649, 661.
See also Fax from National Republican Senatorial Comm.,
id. at 626. The record also reveals that although earmarking funds for a particular candidate is illegal, this prohibition is circumvented through “understandings” regarding what donors give what amounts to the party, which candidates are to receive what funds from the party, and what interests particular donors are seeking to promote.
See, e.g., Decl. of Leon G. Billings (former Exec. Dir. of Dem. Sen. Campaign Comm.),
id. at 382; Decl. of Robert Hickmott (DNC fundraiser),
id. at 446–48; Aff. of Paul Simon,
id. at 465; Decl. of Timothy Wirth,
id. at 543; Dep. of Timothy Wirth,
id. at 644–45.